This paper presents a foucauldian genealogical analysis concerned discursive practices of power directed at workers, especially in rural areas, which constitute the object of "slave labor". We started from the different nomenclatures that are used to describe the practices of exploitation of workers in Brazil, to give visibility to the different fields struggle which materialize in objectification and subsequent subjectivity of these workers. We hypothesized that there is in this power-knowledge game disputes involving government control practices and biopolitical mechanisms operated by various segments that are called upon to arbitrate about people lives through the scope of work. Each nomenclature, thus, would occupy a strategic position in order to "defend", "represent" the field of knowledge which speaks about. These disputes culminate in the production of documents, some of whom were chosen to be analyzed in this work dissertational. These are documents of national and international level, so that these practices were problematized in two levels, as they realize they both interpolate and sometimes they are rivaled each other in creating strategies and tactics conducted for the care and management of workers. Thus, it was found, throughout cut series of documents over, that grows a demand for application of punishment of those found guilty of carrying out exploitative practices, and among others approached series, there is an extension of a tutelary complex, which begins to be encouraged to control and surveillance of workers, encouraged by international organizations like the International Labour Organization, and other movements and civil society groups, which help in producing public politics that often end up functioning as a form of control risks that possibly these workers are subordinate, using statistics to justify their interventions. Take notice, therefore, that a paradox of biopower pass over these practices, placing them in a field of management and control of life, where we ask ourselves: indeed are the human rights and dignity of these people taken into account or only occupy a place within the field of possible events to be controlled by practices of governmentality? We conclude by trying to articulate these issues to the production of names used to describe the practices of exploitation of workers by placing them in government strategies of the population.
|
